The Station Location Problem
ALTO’s competitive case against air travel depends entirely on assumptions about station placement that have never been disclosed — and the emerging evidence suggests those assumptions are optimistic.
No station locations have been confirmed for any of the seven planned ALTO stops. Station selection is explicitly described as an outcome of this consultation process. Yet ALTO’s claimed competitive advantage over air travel, its ridership projections, and its economic case all depend on where the stations are. And on March 23, 2026, the Ontario government moved to allow jets at Billy Bishop — which could eliminate ALTO’s competitive advantage even under the best-case station scenario.
With suburban or peri-urban station locations — the outcome most consistent with ALTO’s cost structure and emerging route geometry — the project’s claimed competitive advantage over air travel collapses on the Toronto–Montréal corridor and reverses entirely on the Toronto–Québec City corridor.
ALTO’s ridership projections, GDP impact figures, and GHG reduction claims all depend on modal shift from air. Modal shift depends on door-to-door time. Door-to-door time depends on where the stations are. The stations are unknown.
The number that isn’t in the brochure
ALTO’s published journey times are train-in-motion figures. Toronto to Montréal in 3 hours 5 minutes. Toronto to Québec City in 4 hours. These numbers do not represent door-to-door travel time — the time that determines whether passengers choose rail over air.
ALTO’s entire economic case is built on modal shift from air to rail. That shift depends on ALTO winning the door-to-door comparison. And that comparison depends, above everything else, on where the stations are.
Smith & Terplan, U of T School of Cities (2025)
Station location is “a critical early decision, as it shapes the path of the alignment” — the primary variable determining whether HSR can compete with air on a door-to-door basis. Spain’s AVE captures two-thirds of Madrid–Barcelona journeys partly because both stations are in city centres.
Roy, Mercier & Filion — HEC Montréal / Laval / Waterloo (2026)
Submitted to the Alto consultation in January 2026. Identified station siting as a primary issue, citing the U of T study directly. Note that Alto’s published journey times “do not appear to take into account the time required for a stop in Ottawa” — meaning best-case rail times are themselves understated.
Air travel door-to-door — the real baseline
~4h 30m
Toronto → Montréal by air (Pearson)
45 min access + 90 min security + 75 min flight + 25 min REM egress
~4h 20m
Toronto → Québec City by air
Pearson + 80 min flight + 30 min taxi from Jean Lesage (no rail)
~55 min
ALTO best-case advantage
Toronto–Montréal with true downtown stations at both ends only
0 min
ALTO advantage with suburban stations
East Harbour + northern Montréal + reversal penalty eliminates the margin entirely
On March 23, 2026, the Ontario government declared Billy Bishop Toronto City Airport a special economic zone, moved to expropriate the City of Toronto’s stake, and announced plans to extend the runway for jets. PM Carney described the plan as having “big possibilities.” If jets fly from Billy Bishop to Montréal Metropolitan (YHU) by 2030, Toronto–Montréal air door-to-door drops to approximately 3 hours 00–20 minutes — matching or beating ALTO’s best-case scenario at ~$150–175 CAD. ALTO’s competitive case was modelled against a Pearson-based air baseline. That baseline may not exist when ALTO opens.
Where ALTO’s stations are most likely to end up
ALTO has not confirmed station locations for any of its seven stops. But its consultation documents, the emerging route geometry, and the structural incentives of the P3 model all point in the same direction: the stations will not be where the ridership model assumed.
Toronto
Under study: tunnel or elevated tracks from north or east
Three candidate zones remain active: near Union, an eastern site (East Harbour), and a western site. East Harbour sits 3 km east of Union Station, served by the Ontario Line, but adds 25–45 minutes for travellers from Mississauga, Brampton, or the 905 belt. A tunnel to Union itself carries enormous cost risk: Eglinton Crosstown’s underground sections ran to nearly $700M per km.
Montréal
Ville-Marie goal — blocked by a $7–16B tunnel
Alto’s stated goal is a downtown Ville-Marie station, reachable only via a tunnel under the Rivière des Prairies and Mount Royal. McGill professor El-Geneidy estimates this at $1B+/km — meaning the tunnel alone represents 12–18% of ALTO’s total cost estimate. Cadence, as DBFOM partner bearing construction risk, has every incentive to eliminate this tunnel. If it does, the downtown station disappears.
Québec City
Sainte-Foy is the most likely terminus
A rail alignment approaching from the southwest geometrically favours the Sainte-Foy area near the existing VIA Rail station. Reaching Gare du Palais in historic Lower Town would require tunnelling through Cap Diamant escarpment. Sainte-Foy is 20–25 minutes by taxi from Parliament and Old Québec — a meaningful penalty for business and government travellers.
The tunnel cost problem
At $1B+/km (Blue Line benchmark), ALTO’s confirmed 10+ km Montréal tunnel represents 12–18% of total project cost — $7.2–16.2 billion for a single element, before overrun. Cadence has an overwhelming financial incentive to shorten or eliminate this tunnel. The government’s stated preference for a downtown Ville-Marie station appears in a consultation document, not a contract. This is the identical structural choice that produced the Eglinton Crosstown’s $13 billion overrun.
Revised door-to-door comparison
The following tables compare door-to-door travel times under three station scenarios for each major corridor. All rail times use ALTO’s own published figures. Access and egress estimates are conservative and generous to the rail case.
Toronto–Montréal
| Scenario | Toronto access | Rail time | Reversal | Montréal egress | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALTO best case — true downtown stations | 15 min | 3h 05min | — | 15 min | 3h 35min |
| East Harbour + near-downtown Mtl | 25 min | 3h 05min | — | 20 min | 3h 50min |
| East Harbour + northern Mtl / Laval + reversal | 25 min | 3h 05min | 20 min | 45 min | 4h 35min |
| Air — Pearson to Trudeau (inc. security) | 45 min | 75 min + 90 min security | — | 25 min (REM) | ~4h 25–45min |
| Air — Billy Bishop jets to YHU (if 2030+) | 15–20 min | 80 min + 65 min security | — | 20–25 min | ~3h 00–20min |
All rail times per ALTO published projections. Billy Bishop row: Ontario SEZ announcement March 23, 2026; endorsed federally. Security buffer 65 min (smaller airport). Montréal egress via YHU. Current fares ~$150–175 CAD (Porter, April 2026).
Toronto–Québec City
| Scenario | Toronto access | Rail time | Reversal at Mtl | QC City egress | Total |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ALTO best case — true downtown stations | 15 min | 4h 00min | — | 15 min | 4h 30min |
| East Harbour + Sainte-Foy | 25 min | 4h 00min | — | 25 min | 4h 50min |
| East Harbour + reversal + Sainte-Foy | 25 min | 4h 00min | 20 min | 25 min | 5h 10min |
| Air — Pearson to Jean Lesage (inc. security) | 45 min | 80 min + 90 min security | — | 30 min (taxi) | ~4h 15–30min |
Jean Lesage (Québec City) has no rail connection to downtown. Taxi is the only practical option regardless of station choice.
Why the economic case cannot be verified
ALTO’s claimed economic benefits — the $35 billion annual GDP contribution, 51,000 construction jobs, substantial GHG reductions — are downstream of ridership projections. Those projections depend on modal shift from air to rail. That shift requires ALTO to win the door-to-door time comparison. The analysis above shows this margin is highly sensitive to station placement — and is not guaranteed even under moderate assumptions.
The independent oversight gap
No independent body has had access to the station location assumptions underpinning ALTO’s ridership model. Under RFQ T8128-210188/C, each of the three pre-qualified consortia was paid up to $20 million to produce ridership modelling deliverables. ATI release A-2025-00026 confirms the Crown holds the intellectual property in those submissions — it has not disclosed them. The government already possesses at least three independent, competitively-produced ridership analyses. The public has seen none of it.
P3 structural incentives and the tunnel dilemma
ALTO is a DBFOM P3. Cadence bears construction cost risk. At $1B+/km, the confirmed Montréal tunnel represents 12–18% of total project cost: $7.2–16.2 billion for a single element. Cadence has an overwhelming financial incentive to shorten or eliminate this tunnel. The government’s intention is a downtown Ville-Marie station — but this appears in a consultation document, not a contract. This is the identical structural choice that produced the Eglinton Crosstown overrun.
ATI Release A-2025-00027 (Package 2): A key admission
ALTO’s own internal technical briefing admits for the Toronto–Montréal journey time analysis: “no rail simulation conducted; no host railway conflict modelling; journey times are spreadsheet estimates only.” The three consortia almost certainly produced more rigorous modelling than the government’s own internal work — and the public has seen none of it.
What we are asking ALTO and Transport Canada to do
Disclose station location assumptions
Publish, as part of the public record of this consultation, the station location assumptions used in all ridership modelling and economic impact analysis — including the assumptions embedded in ALTO’s published journey time and GDP impact figures.
Release consortium ridership models
Release the ridership and demand modelling submitted by all three RFP consortia under contract T8128-210188/C — Crown-owned intellectual property confirmed under ATI A-2025-00026 — before preferred alignments are confirmed. The public consultation is being conducted without access to the only competitively-produced independent ridership analyses the government has commissioned.
Commission independent ridership sensitivity analysis
Commission and publish an independent sensitivity analysis of ridership projections against the full range of station locations currently under study, using simulation-based modelling — not spreadsheet estimation. ATI A-2025-00027 confirms Alto’s internal journey time analysis involved “no rail simulation conducted; no host railway conflict modelling.”
Publish downtown station engineering assessments
Provide engineering assessments and preliminary cost estimates for the downtown station options at Toronto and Montréal before the preferred alignment is selected.
Protect downtown station options
Ensure that no preferred alignment is confirmed that forecloses downtown station options without a full public accounting of the ridership and economic consequences of that choice.